Mdc Structure Restoration Project

[Bill Babler]

Jeremy, I appreciate your's and all thoughts on this. Please read my post throughly. They are placing structure where there has NEVER BEEEN STRUCTURE. Why are we trying to bring LM into traditional SM locations. Are they trying to relocate the SM populations? There are thousands of acres of structure on this lake just like they are creating, that do not hold SM. Why in Be-Geebers mess with areas that are holding them.

These gravel flats in the dam area have been such since the lake was flooded. They have never had either pole timber or any other type of structure on them. My question, is just Why are they targeting these long points and flats that are already holding Smallmouth, that are extremely accessable.

On your other point of making it better for the fish than the fisherman, please look at what the goal of the project was ment to be. To congreate more fish and make it easier for fishermen to fish for larger concentrations of fish is specific loations. This project was not all about the fish, it was also accessability and concentration.

If they wish to rebuild LM and Crappie habitat, I am on board, just not on the flat gravel SM Banks, where it has never been.

[pbd]

Just wondering... How would the MDC know a SM bank from a 40 acre field? I've fished TR for 15 years, and I still find it difficult to locate quality SM areas.

MDC is trying to help (IMO), but is there a way that someone could "guide" them to the appropraite areas for establishing brush piles?

[eric1978]

I'm on board with the "don't fix what ain't broken" philosophy, but I don't see how adding some cover would push smallmouth out of areas they already like for other reasons. All bass like to use cover for ambush points, and the new debris they are sinking will attract more baitfish for the smallies to feed on. Other than making hang-ups more common, what am I missing?

[getfished]

I would be interested to know what qualifications the People have that are making the drop location choices. I'm not trying to be a jerk but I am curious. Are these people heavy equipment operators, are they bean counters, are they fish biologists, are they people who have very intimate knowledge and understanding of the smallie preference as borne out by choice of the smallie himself?

I do know that lots of well meaning bass fishermen sometimes sink scores of brushpiles while at the same time knowing that only a small percentage will be productive. This mentality may be operating in this case also. I would think that some of these locations would still be very productive small jaw spots if they don't totally inundate the flat with debris.

I know the Corps and the MDC are well equipped to manage many different situations but there is a possibility that the intention is to do one thing without realizing the counter effects that sometimes occur on other issues.

I'm really wishing I could get down there a bit more than I have lately but maybe someone should ask them point blank what their purpose in this endeavor is. Are they attempting to improve things for a target species or just fish overall in general.

[redbud]

I have to agree with Bill. Having grown up fishing the Finger lakes up north [no dams] where the only structure are different sizes of rock,I was amazed at the timber that still stands in this lake.Why would you need to add to it?I have looked up the locations of these new piles,entered them into my gps and fished them. In my limited experience the fishing near these piles is no better than any natural structure.The money spent on these projects could be better allocated.How about a light or two near the corps launches.Many ramps are in need of repair.Danger bouys are needed in many places.How about a little litter control?The only thing they are doing right is keeping it natural,at least we dont have some brainiac in charge ,making the decision to put some infernal PVC contraption on the bottom.Some people just cant leave well enough alone,sorry Bill.I have confidence that you will still find the fish and continue to give the reports that everyone on this forum looks forward to.They cant cover the whole point,do you think the fish will find a new gravel bar,or just move around on the gravel they have leaving the brush to the crappie and largemouth?

[Bill Babler]

I'm on board with the "don't fix what ain't broken" philosophy, but I don't see how adding some cover would push smallmouth out of areas they already like for other reasons. All bass like to use cover for ambush points, and the new debris they are sinking will attract more baitfish for the smallies to feed on. Other than making hang-ups more common, what am I missing?

Eric, your statements are qualified by general bass fishing knowledge, but NOT at all area specific. Our Smallmouth are not ambush feeders in the slightest. They are hunter-gathers, they are seakers and roamers. They are just as happy suspended in 30 ft. water over 100 as to being on the bottom. They occupy all levels of the water column at different times of the year. They are somewhat like and I know this is a poor compairison, the predators of the plains, they roam vast open areas sight feeding and chasing down their prey. There are already millions of locations that are simply covered with rock, brush, logs and stumps. They don't live there. They live where they live for a reason. What we don't want to do here is put a Cheeta in an oakbrush thicket and tell him to survive, that is not how he is built.

Don't for one instant think I am not totally on board with the creation of habitat on Table Rock Lake. Placing structure in parts of the like is fine, but trying to change an enviornment or eco-system that is one of the best in the Mid-West is another matter.

The guys working on this project are qualified Biologist, they are very well educated and excellent young men, and without a doubt they want to make this a better lake. Maybe just need to take a little longer look at where some of this stuff is being placed and ask themselfs a few more questions. I as most of us long time fishermen here, believe this is not "Fields of Dreams." If you build it they will come. We are more from the school, if its the best in the Midwest and it ain't broke, don't mess with it.

[Phil Lilley]

Why don't you all ask them yourselves...

417-895-6880 is the Springfield office's number. Call them for contact information on Shane Bush and Mike Allen. Call, email go talk them in person.

Why keep asking questions on a forum that MDC won't/can't post on? It's like asking questions knowing you're not going to get an answer, at least here.

[eric1978]

You're right, Bill...I don't know anything about reservoir smallies, so I'll take your word for it.

But just a question...Is it possible that the places on TR that are loaded with cover but absent of smallies would be absent of those smallies whether the cover was there or not, and the areas that currently hold smallies without cover will continue to hold smallies with cover? It's a poor argument in favor of the restoration project, I know, but I still wonder how and why it would push smallmouth from their current habitat.

[Phil Lilley]

From Mike Allen, biologist MDC

Table Rock Lake Habitat Enhancement near Clevenger Cove

Michael Allen

Fisheries Biologist

Missouri Department of Conservation

During the months of October and November 2010, MDC staff, along with contractors, will be placing fish habitat structures in Table Rock Lake near Clevenger Branch. These structures will be composed of large, rip-rap (rocks; 12-24” diameter) and large hardwood stumps. Structures will be placed in areas currently devoid of physical habitat, such as gravel flats and points. To minimize boating hazards, structures will be placed in water no shallower than 15 feet (elev. 900 feet msl) in any area, and no shallower than 20 feet (elev. 895 feet msl) in areas heavily travelled by boaters. Structures composed of rock will be concentrated in a single pile, building the structures taller off of the bottom and minimizing the distance covered on the lake bed. SCUBA surveys have shown that “rock piles” that were built up taller in the water column (3 -– 5 feet) were much more effective at holding fish than “piles” that were scattered out along the lake bed. Structure size along the lake bed will be minimized as much as possible and will be no more than 30 feet long. Structures composed of stumps will be distributed in a relatively straight line parallel to the shoreline within the specified depth. The hardwood stumps being used are very large and stand up to 5 feet individually. Therefore, spreading the structures into “stump fields” will minimize safety concerns and be very effective at holding fish. Structures placed shall be no closer than 300 feet from any other artificial structure. With this in mind, the structures will cover no more than 10% of the bottom in any area. This will create more diverse habitat locations for fish and anglers to utilize.

These structures will attract more baitfish and crayfish to the areas where placed, therefore attracting more game fish. All three species of black bass (largemouth, smallmouth and spotted) were found using the structures placed in similar areas during recent surveys. In the areas surveyed near Table Rock Dam, smallmouth and spotted bass were the primary bass species observed on the structures.

[Jason Essary]

Lilley, thanks as always for the effort. Sounds good to me.